Blackmoor Vituperative

I wish Americans were a little less fixated on 18th century concepts of political science, civic engagement, and natural philosophy.

This is not the future I expected.

The air is cleaner and the sea level isn’t as high as some science fiction authors predicted. Other than that, the real world has gotten much worse much faster than this science fiction obsessed kid ever expected. Rivers drying up, corporations owning lifetime copyright on our cultural heritage, nonstop wars, a major political party turning into a death cult, more wealth in fewer hands than ever before, and the looming threat of AI making most of us useless and disposable to the corporations that actually own this world.

And the sea level is still rising.

But the air really is cleaner than it was when I was a kid. That’s pretty nice.

Grass — “turf grass” — is very good at what it does. Your kids and dogs can play on it without getting muddy. It prevents erosion. It does not die back in winter, so it still protects against erosion from winter storms. There is grass suited to bright, hot areas, and there is grass suitable for colder, more shady areas. And turf grass is fairly easy to care for, if you choose an appropriate type of grass.

The problem with “lawns” is that Americans try to grow them in deserts, and/or dump chemicals on the ground trying to make the grass look like AstroTurf. If you live in a desert — if you must water your grass weekly just to keep it from dying — then don’t grow grass! And use any chemicals sparingly, if at all.

Grass is not the problem. Lawns are not the problem. Stupid people are the problem.

This is your semiannual reminder that the pointless ritual known as “daylight saving time” does not make you lose or gain anything. You don’t gain or lose time. You don’t gain or lose daylight. The amount of daylight stays precisely the same.

That’s not entirely correct: we do lose something. We lose hundreds of millions of dollars, and thousands of lives.

I’ve seen a lot of good arguments against oppressing women — and a lot of hypocritical and/or morally bankrupt arguments for it.

I’d not seen this take on it before. The place I found it had it as an image, so I have transcribed it here.

If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully-grown person, it would be illegal to force me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this… cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon.

Like, we can’t even take life saving organs from corpses unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy.

To tell people that they must sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what you view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the vast majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died.

You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies.

(copied from a user called fandomsandfeminism)

Naturally, when I was looking for the original source for this (which I didn’t find), I found some hypocritical and/or morally bankrupt responses to it.

But here’s the thing: if your first reaction, on reading this, is to try and find some ethical loophole that will allow you to continue to oppress and enslave women while the tattered scraps of your conscience maintain plausible deniability, you are a terrible person. Take a long look in the mirror, and ask yourself how you became this shallow mockery of a human being.

Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain. Exalted reason,
Resplendent daughter of the head divine,
Wise foundress of the system of the world,
Guide of the stars, who art thou then if thou,
Bound to the tail of folly’s uncurbed steed,
Must, vainly shrieking with the drunken crowd,
Eyes open, plunge down headlong in the abyss.
Accursed, who striveth after noble ends,
And with deliberate wisdom forms his plans!
To the fool-king belongs the world.

— Friedrich Schiller, predicting the existence of anti-vaxxers and climate deniers

Fun fact: “science” isn’t an object that can be banned. “Science” is a method of observing the world and understanding it. It’s not infallible, because humans are not infallible, but one of the best aspects of the “scientific method” is it is self-correcting, like shooting an arrow closer and closer to the bull’s eye on a target. Banning “science” doesn’t move the target, it just means your arrow will miss it. And the target, of course, is the real world.

In 2012, the state now in the path of Hurricane Florence reacted to a prediction by its Coastal Resources Commission that sea levels could rise by 39in over the next century by passing a law that banned policies based on such forecasts.

The legislation drew ridicule, including a mocking segment by comedian Stephen Colbert, who said: “If your science gives you a result you don’t like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved.”

North Carolina has a long, low-lying coastline and is considered one of the US areas most vulnerable to rising sea levels.

But dire predictions alarmed coastal developers and their allies, who said they did not believe the rise in sea level would be as bad as the worst models predicted and said such forecasts could unnecessarily hurt property values and drive up insurance costs.

As a result, the state’s official policy, rather than adapting to the worst potential effects of climate change, has been to assume it simply won’t be that bad. Instead of forecasts, it has mandated predictions based on historical data on sea level rise.

“The science panel used one model, the most extreme in the world,” Pat McElraft, the sponsor of the 2012 bill, said at the time, according to Reuters. “They need to use some science that we can all trust when we start making laws in North Carolina that affect property values on the coast.”

— The Guardian 2018-09-12

By the way, I support The Guardian by subscribing. It’s worth paying for, if you can afford it.

Fun fact! The Earth’s human population has doubled since 1971. So if, hypothetically, someone were to snap their fingers and kill half of the Earth’s population, they would set our inevitable self-destruction back by less than two generations. Hardly seems worth it, really.

I’ve been watching all of the Godzilla movies in order. I’m up to “Godzilla vs. Destoroyah” (1995). One of the wacky things about Godzilla movies is their … I guess I’d call it “alternative science”. Most Godzilla movies have at least one scene with people in a lab or around a table, explaining to each other the most nonsensical “science” behind whatever might be happening.

Hmm. Prostate cancer is more deadly than I realized.

The number of new cases of prostate cancer was 119.8 per 100,000 men per year. The number of deaths was 20.1 per 100,000 men per year. These rates are age-adjusted and based on 2010-2014 cases and deaths. Approximately 11.6 percent of men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2012-2014 data. In 2014, there were an estimated 3,085,209 men living with prostate cancer in the United States.

In contrast, the number of new cases of female breast cancer was 124.9 per 100,000 women per year. The number of deaths was 21.2 per 100,000 women per year. These rates are age-adjusted and based on 2010-2014 cases and deaths. Approximately 12.4 percent of women will be diagnosed with female breast cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2012-2014 data. In 2014, there were an estimated 3,327,552 women living with female breast cancer in the United States.

I knew that the incidence of prostate cancer is about the same as that of breast cancer, but for some reason I thought the mortality rate was much lower.

We have the “save the boobies” campaign to raise money and awareness for breast cancer research. Maybe a “save the boners” campaign for prostate cancer research would not be a terrible idea. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would be surprised at the mortality rate.

P.S. There are people who bitterly oppose the “save the boobies” campaign, and would rather it didn’t exist. I think those people are wrong.

Humans are pretty simple. We like sex, we like pretty people, we like people with whom we can easily sympathize. A pretty girl with an inoperable brain tumor raises hundreds of thousands of dollars. “Save the boobies” raises awareness of breast cancer and raises money. A boy with a beautiful smile and a gift for science gets tons of support. People who entertain us get our attention, and our money. Fat people, ugly people, diseases that are just gross, people who are completely ordinary… not so much.

We can bemoan that we are so shallow, and accomplish nothing, or we can leverage human nature to try and make the world better. Having had more than one family member diagnosed with breast cancer (one of whom is now dead), I think any positive action we can take is a good one.